[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <a1bd8864-a7df-9fc8-8257-bfc0d3620c22@cs.kuleuven.be>
Date: Thu, 20 Jul 2023 21:34:20 +0200
From: Jo Van Bulck <jo.vanbulck@...kuleuven.be>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko@...nel.org>, linux-sgx@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc: dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] selftests/sgx: Harden test enclave API
On 20.07.23 19:32, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>> +#define PANIC() \
>> + asm("ud2\n\t")
>
> any reason not to use static inline function?
>
Thanks for the suggestion, no reason in this case. Apart perhaps that
it's only 1 line of code and an inline function may seem a bit like a
waste (given that gcc does not inline until certain optimization
levels). I can surely change it to static inline void panic(void) if you
prefer?
>> +#define SAFE_COPY_STRUCT(u_arg, t_cp) \ >> + do { \
>> + /* 1. check if the argument lies entirely outside */ \
>> + if (!is_outside_enclave((void *)u_arg, sizeof(*t_cp))) \
>> + PANIC(); \
>> + /* 2. copy the argument inside to prevent TOCTOU */ \
>> + memcpy(t_cp, u_arg, sizeof(*t_cp)); \
>> + } while (0)
>> +
This could be made into a static inline function, but then t_cp would
have to be type void* and sizeof(*t_cp) won't work anymore and a third
parameter to pass the sizeof would be needed, which would require the
caller to pass it correctly. Hence, a macro seems "safer" to me here in
this instance as it requires only 2 arguments. Agreed?
>> +#define ASSERT_INSIDE_ENCLAVE(u_arg, size) \
>> + do { \
>> + if (!is_inside_enclave(((void *)(u_arg)), size)) \
>> + PANIC(); \
>> + } while (0)
This macro could certainly be turned into a static inline void function
if preferred.
Best,
Jo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists